'Producing the Scene': the Evolution of the Director in British Theatre 1900-50

The role of the director as the individual who harnesses and controls resources to shape the theatrical product to a personal artistic vision, begins to emerge in British theatre in the early years of the twentieth century. What distinguishes the role from that of the actor-manager who had led the profession since the seventeenth century, is that it separates off from the leading actor in performance. The power and authority of the director (or producer as he or she tended to be known initially) is exercised in the pre-performance stage. In the first half of the century there were still old-style actor-managers—Donald Wolfit is a prime example—and many of the new directors had begun their careers as actors and some continued to act their in their own productions. But the perception of the function of the director began to change radically. In part this was linked to the early attempts to create a new model of producing company or ‘repertory’ theatre which required a different set of administrative as well as artistic skills to tackle the challenge of a short-run system of multiple play production. This became especially important in the developing network of regional repertory theatres which were established as autonomous, locally-specific institutions predicated on policies opposed to the dominant commercial ethos. The best-known of the early directors, most notably H.Granville Barker, confined their radical experiments to short-lived metropolitan experiments, or, as in the case of Terence Gray and J.B.Fagan, operated within the influential Oxbridge nexus. Others such as H.K.Ayliff, Herbert Prentice, William Armstrong and William Bridges-Adams remain comparatively obscure because of their long-term ‘provincial’ connections or, as in the case of Nugent Monck and Edy Craig because their creativity was largely channelled through amateur actors. This chapter will explore the evolving role of the director as both a necessary functionary and an artistic innovator within the changing structures of British theatre.

Shakespeare and the Re/Vision of Indian Heritage in the Postcolonial British Context

As part of the 2012 World Shakespeare Festival, the Royal Shakespeare Company staged a production of Much Ado About Nothing set in India. Shakespeare’s Messina in sixteenth century Italy was transposed to twenty-first century Delhi and with a company of actors who were all of Indian heritage. The casting of individual British Asian actors in mainstream UK productions of Shakespeare is no longer unusual. What was unprecedented here, however, was that not only was the entire cast ‘Asian’ but the director was not, as is standard practice, a leading member of the white British theatrical establishment. Instead the director, Iqbal Khan, is the son of a Pakistani father who migrated to England in the 1960s. I use the term ‘Indian heritage’ with great caution conscious that what began under the British Raj in nineteenth century India led through subsequent economic imperatives and exigencies, and political schism to a history of migratory patterns which means that today’s British Asian population is a complex demographic construct representing numerous different languages and cultural and religious affiliations. The routes which brought those actors to play imagined Indian Shakespeare in Stratford-upon-Avon in July 2012 were many and various. I explore in this chapter the way in which that complexity of heritage has been brought to bear on the revisioning of Shakespeare by British Asian theatre makers operating outside the theatrical mainstream. In general because of the social, economic and institutional challenges facing British Asian theatre artists, the number of independent professional companies is comparatively small and for the most part, their work has focused on creating drama which interrogates thorny questions of identity formation and contemporary cultural practices within the ‘new’ British Asian communities. Nevertheless for artists born and/or educated in the UK the Western classical canon, including of course Shakespeare, is as much part of their heritage as the classical Indian narratives and performance traditions which so powerfully evoke collective memories of the lost ‘home’ of their elders. By far the most consistent engagement with Shakespeare has been seen in the work of Tara Arts which was the first British Asian theatre company set up in 1977. The artistic director Jatinder Verma brings his own ‘transformed and translated’ heritage as an East African-born, Punjabi-speaking, English-educated, Indian migrant to the UK to plays as diverse as A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Troilus and Cressida , The Tempest and The Merchant of Venice. I discuss examples of Tara productions in the light of the way Shakespeare’s plays have been used to forge both creative synergies between parallel cultures and provide a means of addressing the ontological ruptures and dislocations associated with the colonial past.

Theatrical Latency: Walking Katrina Palmer’s The Loss Adjusters

In this article I introduce the term ‘theatrical latency’ as a pleasurable effect experienced when listening to sound in relation to visual perception. Latency refers to both the phenomena of audio delay (in feedback from analogue to digital conversion and the momentary lapses experienced when playing live with recorded music) and a theatrical sensation that comes from the reanimation of visual environments through aural framing. In this configuration, the notion of latency takes on a double meaning as both a recorded phenomenon and the retrieval of something dormant within physical objects, sites or materials. These ideas will be introduced through my experience of walking Katrina Palmer’s site-specific audio work The Loss Adjusters (2015) on the island of Portland (UK). The audio tracks create an extended meditation on Portland, interweaving specific locations and histories with fictional characters and ghosts of the island.